TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as permitted to proceed with the auction but not finalize the sale pursuant thereto, until further orders. This Court did not prevent Respondent No.4 from adopting proceedings either before this Court or the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Now, the order passed by this Court records that the Collector and District Magistrate cannot insist on the Petitioner handing over the possession of the property in question to Respondent No.4. We do not have any record of the further steps taken either by the Petitioner or by Respondent No.4 - Borrower. In these circumstances, we do not see any purpose of continuing this order. We do not know whether the Petitioner before us has conducted the auction, finalized it, and is now keen to hand over the possession of the property to the successful bidder. Even if all this has been done, we do not know what steps the successful bidder or auction purchaser proposes to take. In these circumstances, and on some vague understanding of the parties, we cannot continue this ad-interim order. Rather, after the Petitioner has succeeded, there is no point in restraining it from exercising its rights under the SARFAESI Act. This is more so in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and District Magistrate (Respondent No.3) shall not insist upon the Petitioner, handing over possession of the properties, but at the same time the Petitioner shall maintain status-quo in respect thereof. It was further clarified that the Petitioner was at liberty to proceed with the auction of the property of which possession was taken, but shall not finalize the same until further orders of this Court. Thereafter, on 12 August, 2014, rule was issued in this Writ Petition and the ad-interim relief granted on 11th June, 2013 was continued as interim relief pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition. The hearing of this Writ Petition was also expedited. It is in these circumstances, this Writ Petition has come up before us for hearing and final disposal. 3. We must at the outset note that though the main relief in the Writ Petition is to challenge the notifications issued by Respondent No.2 under the provisions of the BRU Act, Mr Kamdar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has given up that challenge and has addressed us only on the issue whether the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, and more particularly section 13 thereof, override the provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act calling upon Respondent No.4 to pay an amount of ₹ 264,74,22,000/- to the Petitioner and other consortium banks. (d) As Respondent No.4 did not discharge its liability, the Petitioner issued a possession notice dated 5th November, 2012 under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and thereafter went to take possession of the property mentioned in the said notice. Since Respondent No.4 refused to handover actual physical possession of the property, symbolic possession was taken. Thereafter, the Petitioner moved an application before Respondent No.3 herein under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act requesting Respondent No.3 to take actual physical possession of the said property. Accordingly, Respondent No.3 passed an order on 11th March, 2013 directing that physical possession of the said property and which was secured as a mortgage in favour of the Petitioner and other consortium banks, be handed over by Respondent No.4. Accordingly, and pursuant to the aforesaid order, physical forcible possession of the said property was taken by the Respondent No.3 and handed over to the Petitioner on 29th April, 2013. The Petitioner has been in actual phy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding that banks and financial institutions were suffering considerable difficulties in recovering their loans and advances due to the fact that the procedure existing then for recovery was extremely time consuming and burdensome, and the debts due to banks and financial institutions blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks And Financial Institutions Act, 1993 was enacted. Under this Act, exclusive jurisdiction was conferred upon the Debt Recovery Tribunal ( DRT ) [constituted under the said Act] for adjudicating the debts due to the banks and financial institutions. Mr Kamdar submitted that thereafter the Legislature found that the financial sector, being one of the key drivers in India's efforts to achieve success in rapidly developing its economy, did not have a level playing field as compared to other participants in the financial markets of the world. The Legislature felt that notwithstanding the RDDB Act, our existing legal framework had not kept pace with the changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms, which resulted in delays in recovery of defaulting loans. It is in these circumstances the Le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion whatsoever, the State Government, by notification in the official gazette, could direct that in relation to any relief undertaking and in respect of the period for which the relief undertaking continues as such under sub-section (2) of Section 3, any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared as a relief undertaking, and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any Court, Tribunal, Officer or Authority shall be stayed. 8. Mr. Kamdar submitted that in the facts of the present case, a notification (and renewed from time to time) as contemplated under Section 4(1)(a)(iv) was issued by the State Government declaring Respondent No.4 as a relief undertaking. He submitted that by virtue of this notification, it was the contention of Respondent No.4 that the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act could not continue as there was a complete bar as set out in the said Section read with said notification. He submitted that this provision was directly inconsistent with the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and more particularly Section 13 thereof which inter alia empowers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On the same parity of reasoning, Mr Kamdar submitted that we hold that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act override the provisions of the BRU Act and consequently, the letter dated 6th June, 2013, issued by Respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 submitted that there was no inconsistency between the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the BRU Act so as to hold that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act would override the provisions of the BRU Act. He submitted that the BRU Act was an act to make temporary provisions for industrial relations and other matters to enable the State Government to conduct or to provide a loan, guarantee or financial assistance for the conduct of certain industrial undertakings as a measure of preventing unemployment or of unemployment relief. He submitted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Act would indicate that this Act was promulgated in order to mitigate hardship that may be caused to the workers who are rendered jobless by closure of the undertaking. 11. In contrast he submitted that the SARFAESI Act was brought into force to regulate securitisati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State. Looking to the provisions of Article 246 and 254 of the Constitution of India, Mr Jain submitted that the question of repugnancy would arise only in relation to any entry in the Concurrent List. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, the SARFAESI Act has been enacted by virtue of entry 45 in the Union List whereas the BRU Act is enacted by the State Government under the State List. This being the case, there was no question of repugnancy between the provisions of the BRU Act and the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 13. Mr. Jain then submitted that under Section 4(1)(a)(iv) of the BRU Act, any right, privilege, obligation or liability accrued or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking, and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended, and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed. He submitted that this suspension is not indefinite but for a limited period as set out in Section 3(2) of the BR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Standards, the Government set up two Narasimhan Committees and the Andhyarujina Committee for the purposes of examining banking sector reforms. These Committees inter alia suggested enactment of a new legislation for securitization and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of the securities and to sell them without the intervention of the Court. Accepting these recommendations, the SARFAESI Act was brought into force with w.r.e.f. 21-06-2002. There have been several amendments to the SARFAESI Act, the latest being an amendment of 2016 that received the assent of the President on 12 August, 2016 and was published in the Official Gazette dated 16 August, 2016. It is called the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016. The preamble of this amending Act indicates that the same was intended to further amend the SARFAESI Act, the RDDB Act, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Depository Act, 1996 and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 16. Section 2 of the SARFAESI Act is the definitions clause and inter alia stipulates that in this Act, unless the context otherwise requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quirement of classification of secured debt as non-performing asset under this sub-section shall not apply to a borrower who has raised funds through issue of debt securities; and (ii) in the event of default, the debenture trustee shall be entitled to enforce security interest in the same manner as provided under this section with such modifications as may be necessary and in accordance with the terms and conditions of security documents executed in favour of the debenture trustee; (3) The notice referred to in sub-section (2) shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower and the secured assets intended to be enforced by the secured creditor in the event of non-payment of secured debts by the borrower. (3-A) If, on receipt of the notice under sub-section (2), the borrower makes any representation or raises any objection, the secured creditor shall consider such representation or objection and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is not acceptable or tenable, he shall communicate 2[within fifteen days] of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, failing which the secured creditor is entitled to exercise all or any of the rights under Section 13(4). Section 13(4) stipulates that in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the time period specified under Section 13(2), then, the secured creditor can take recourse to any one or more measures set out in the said sub-section. One of the measures that the secured creditor can take to enforce its security is to take possession of the secured asset and thereafter transfer the same by way of lease, assignment or sale. These rights that have been granted to the secured creditor under Section 13 to ensure that the secured creditor can enforce its security without having to come to Court or institute any legal proceedings in respect thereof. 19. Thereafter comes Section 14 which inter alia empowers the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of the secured asset. This section inter alia stipulates that where possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. Section 37 provides that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Companies Act, 1956; the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956; the Securities and Exchange Board of India, Act, 1992; the RDDB Act; or any other law for the time being in force. We must at once note over there that the BRU Act is not one of the enactments listed in Section 37 that is in addition to and not in derogation of the SARFAESI Act. Even the words or any other law for the time being in force have been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Madras Petrochem Ltd. [2016] 4 SCC 1, wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a liberal meaning is given to the said expression, Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act would become completely otiose as all other laws would then be in addition to and not in derogation of the SARFAESI Act. The Supreme Court opined that obviously this could not have been the parliamentary intendment, and hence, by limiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification whether started, acquired or otherwise taken over by the State Government, and carried on or proposed to be carried on by itself or under its authority, or to which any loan, guarantee or other financial assistance has been provided by the State Government shall, with effect from the date specified for the purpose in the notification, be conducted to serve as a measure of preventing unemployment or of unemployment relief and the undertaking shall accordingly be deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purposes of this Act. (2) A notification under sub-section (1) shall have effect for such period not exceeding twelve months as may be specified in the notification; but it shall be renewable by like notifications from time to time for further periods not exceeding twelve months at a time, so however that all the periods in the aggregate do not exceed fifteen years. 25. Thereafter comes Section 4 which deals with the power to prescribe industrial relations and other facilities temporarily for a relief undertaking. Section 4 of the BRU Act reads thus:- 4. (1) Notwithstanding any law, usage, custom, contract, instrument, decree, order, award, submission, settleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ombay General Clauses Act, 1904, shall apply to the power to issue such notification. (emphasis supplied) 26. What can be seen from the aforesaid provisions is that under Section 3, if at any time it appears necessary to the State Government to do so, it may by notification in the Official Gazette declare that an undertaking specified in the notification shall, with effect from the date specified for the purpose in the notification, be deemed to be a relief undertaking for the purpose of the BRU Act. Section 4 inter alia stipulates that notwithstanding any law, usage, custom, contract instrument, decree, order, award, submission, settlement, standing order, or any other provisions whatsoever, the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette direct that in relation to any relief undertaking [in respect of which it continues as such under the provisions of Section 3(2)], any right, privilege, obligation or liability agreed or incurred before the undertaking was declared a relief undertaking and remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended, and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , accrued or incurred before the 18th June, 2016 and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, tribunal officer or authority shall be stayed, provided that the said relief undertaking adopts all necessary reforms mandatorily as decided by the State Government during the relief undertaking period. By order in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra, SANJAY DEGAONKAR, Deputy Secretary to Government. (emphasis supplied) 28. This notification inter alia stipulates that it shall be valid for a period of one year commencing from 18th June, 2016 till 17th June, 2017 and directs that in relation to Respondent No.4 (the relief undertaking) any rights, privileges, obligations or liabilities (except the obligations or liabilities mentioned therein) accrued or incurred before 18th June, 2016, and any remedy for the enforcement thereof shall be suspended, and all proceedings relating thereto pending before any court, tribunal, officer or authority shall be stayed. 29. Therefore, on a plain reading of the provisions of BRU Act read with the notification issued thereunder (as reproduced above), what b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 36. A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions shows that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 prevails in all situations where there are earlier enactments with non obstante clauses similar to the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Where there are later enactments with similar non obstante clauses, the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 has been held to prevail only in a situation where the reach of the non obstante clause in the later Act is limited-such as in the case of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-or in the case of the later Act expressly yielding to the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, as in the case of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Where such is not the case, as in the case of Special Courts Act, 1992, it is the Special Courts Act, 1992 which was held to prevail over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 37. We have now to undertake an analysis of the Acts in question. The first thing to be noticed is the difference between Section 37 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 has, therefore, to be given precedence over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, unlike the old scheme for recovery of debts contained in the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 38. Another interesting pointer to the same conclusion is the fact that Section 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is not made subject to Section 37 of the said Act. This statutory scheme is at complete variance with the statutory scheme contained in Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 in which sub-section (1) of Section 34 containing the non obstante clause is expressly made subject to sub-section (2) [containing the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985] by the expression save as provided under sub-section (2) . 39. This is what then brings us to the doctrine of harmonious construction, which is one of the paramount doctrines that is applied in interpreting all statutes. Since neither Section 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . ** ** ** 57. The resultant position may be stated thus: 1. Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 will continue to apply in the case of unsecured creditors seeking to recover their debts from a sick industrial company. This is for the reason that the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 overrides the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 2. Where a secured creditor of a sick industrial company seeks to recover its debt in the manner provided by Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, such secured creditor may realise such secured debt under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. 3. In a situation where there are more than one secured creditor of a sick industrial company or it has been jointly financed by secured creditors, and at least 60% of such secured creditors in value of the amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any of the properties of the industrial company or for the appointment of a receiver in respect thereof shall lie or be proceeded with further, except with the consent of the Board or, as the case may be, the appellate authority. The Supreme Court, whilst considering section 22, held that this provision of SICA, 1985, by virtue of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, would have to give way to the measures taken by a secured creditor under section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. On the same parity of reasoning we have no hesitation in holding that the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the BRU Act read with the notification issued thereunder will have to give way to the measures taken, or to be taken, by the secured creditor under section 13 of SARFAESI Act. As stated earlier, the provisions of BRU Act have the effect of restraining the secured creditor from exercising its statutory rights under the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act which suspend/stay the enforcement of its security interest. This would show that there is a clear inconsistency between the provisions of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act (which enable the secured creditor to enforce its security interest without interventio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any matter enumerated in List II ( the State List ). Over and above this, Parliament, and subject to Article 246(1) the Legislature of any State, also has the power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List III ( the Concurrent List ). The question of repugnancy is dealt with in Article 254 and inter alia stipulates that if any provision of a law made by the Legislature of the State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of Article 254(2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of A.P. v. J.B. Educational Society, [2005] 3 SCC 212 wherein the Supreme Court has very succinctly set out as to how conflicts between laws made by Parliament and by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proviso that Parliament can again bring a legislation to override even such State legislation. (emphasis supplied) 34. Looking to what has been opined by the Supreme Court, it is now well settled that both Parliament and the State Legislature are supreme in their respective assigned fields. It is the duty of the Court to interpret the legislations made by Parliament and the Legislature of the State in such a manner so as to avoid any conflict. For this purpose both the enactments have to be read as a whole. The Court has to make every endeavor to ensure that both can stand together without there being any conflict. However, if the conflict is unavoidable and the two enactments or any provisions thereof are irreconcilable, then by the force of the non-obstante in clause (1) of Article 246, the Parliamentary Legislation would prevail notwithstanding the exclusive power of the State Legislature to make a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the State List. This would also apply when Parliament makes a law in respect of a matter enumerated in the Union List and the State Legislature makes a law with respect to a matter enumerated in the Concurrent List. 35. The two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e repugnant or inconsistent with each other. In our opinion, in this case there is a good deal of justification to hold that these laws, the Industrial Disputes Act and the Rajasthan Act tread on the same field and both laws deal with the rights of dismissed workman or employee. But these two laws are not inconsistent or repugnant to each other. The basic test of repugnancy is that if one prevails the other cannot prevail. That is not the position in this case. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, however, contended that in this case, there had been an application as indicated above under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Act and which was dismissed on ground of limitation. Sree Shankar Ghosh tried to submit that there would be inconsistency or repugnancy between the two decisions, one given on limitation and the other if any relief is given under the Act. We are unable to accept this position, because the application under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Act was dismissed not on merit but on limitation. There is a period of limitation provided under the Rajasthan Act of six months and it may be extended for reasonable cause. But there is no period of limitation as such provided u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Section 35. We, therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting this argument of Mr Jain. 37. Having said this, what is left is to deal with the judgments cited by Mr Jain. The first judgment cited by Mr Jain is the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Binod Mills Co. Pvt. Ltd. Ujjain (M.P.) v. Suresh Chandra MahaveerPrasad Mantri, Bombay [1987] 3 SCC 99. On a careful perusal of the said judgment, we fail to see how the same is applicable to the facts of the present case. The facts of that case would reveal that the Respondent therein filed a Summary Suit against the Appellant in the Bombay High Court on its original side. The Appellant before the Supreme Court did not contest the suit and the same was accordingly decreed. Thereafter, the Respondent got the decree transferred for execution to the District Judge, Ujjain (M.P.) and thereafter applied for execution of the decree. The Appellant before the Supreme Court thereafter resisted the execution by filing objections pleading that it was a relief undertaking under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Upkram (Vishesh Upbandh) Adhiniyam, 1978, and that the decree could not, therefore, be executed against it in view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court was carrying on business and ran into financial difficulties. As a result of this, winding up proceedings were commenced against it. The 1st Respondent before the Supreme Court and which was the partnership firm, filed a Company Petition as a creditor, for winding up the Appellant Company. The Appellant Company was carrying on business in a backward area in the State of Maharashtra and had employed about 200 workers who would have been rendered jobless if the Company was wound up. The Appellant company had also borrowed about ₹ 52.36 Lacs from SICOM. Taking into consideration the financial position of the Company and the consequences that were likely to ensue, the Government of Maharashtra took action under the BRU Act by declaring it as a relief undertaking and issued a notification to that effect. Once it was declared as a relief undertaking, the proceedings for winding up the Appellant filed by the 1st Respondent were also stayed by the Company Judge of the High Court. This order of the Company Judge was challenged before the Division Bench without any success and this order became final. Having failed in its attempt in winding up proceedings, Respondent No.1 fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not be arbitrarily evicted by using the provisions of SARFAESI Act as that would amount to stultifying the statutory rights vested in the tenants under the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court inter alia held that pre-existing genuine tenants (prior to creation of the mortgage) could not be evicted by taking recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The logic behind the same was quite simple. A tenant who had not mortgaged its tenancy rights with the bank and had absolutely no privity with the bank or the loan granted to the borrower (who happened to be the landlord of the property), could not be summarily evicted by taking recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and giving a complete go-by to the provisions of the Rent Control Act. If the mortgage was created after the tenancy and which tenancy was valid, then there was no question of evicting that tenant under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. What is important to note is that the Supreme Court inter alia held that if the leasehold right is created after the property has been mortgaged to the bank, the consent of the creditor had to be taken. This itself postulates that the SARFAESI Act did not destroy the pre exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct was challenged in light of the provisions to the Central Act which was brought into force much after the provisions of the State Act. It is, in these circumstances, that the observations made by the Supreme Court in the said decision have to be read and understood. In the facts before us, on the basis of the SARFAESI Act, the Petitioner has not contended and rightly so, that the provisions of the BRU Act are unconstitutional. The argument before us is simply that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, by virtue of Section 35 thereof, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in the BRU Act. Meaning thereby, that the secured creditor can take recourse to Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act notwithstanding Sections 3 4 of BRU Act and the notification issued thereunder. In these circumstances, we find that even the reliance placed on this decision is wholly without any merit and has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 41. The last decision relied upon by Mr Jain is of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Modern Syndex (I) Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur Ors. AIR 2001 Rajasthan 170. On a careful perusal of the aforesai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d thirty days time to adopt appropriate proceedings. The order passed on 11th June, 2013 wrongly refers to Respondent No.4 as Petitioner. The Petitioner is an ARC and which would not ordinarily ask for any interim relief. However, it was forced to apply for interim reliefs as the property in question, the possession of which was with it in terms of the measures under the SARFAESI Act, was to be handed over or returned back to Respondent No.4. Accordingly, whilst granting interim reliefs in favour of the Petitioner, it was directed to maintain status-quo. However, it was permitted to proceed with the auction but not finalize the sale pursuant thereto, until further orders. This Court did not prevent Respondent No.4 from adopting proceedings either before this Court or the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Now, the order passed by this Court records that the Collector and District Magistrate cannot insist on the Petitioner handing over the possession of the property in question to Respondent No.4. 47. We do not have any record of the further steps taken either by the Petitioner or by Respondent No.4 - Borrower. In these circumstances, we do not see any purpose of continuin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
